Wednesday, June 20, 2012

America has declared war on your Obese fat @$$

As I sit at my desk chewing on some JIF Peanut Butter smeared Ritz crackers, I’m here to announce that there’s a war on your fat ass. That’s right from Politicians, First Ladies, Australians, Celebrities and Political pundits alike are for/against your cottage cheese rear end consuming food and drink.

Wait did I say Australians?

Yes, Professor Boyd Swimburn of Deakin University conducted a two part study in early 2003 to which the research team tracked caloric intake of adults and children between 1970 and 2003. The first part of the study tracked the caloric intake of adults and children to maintain the ideal weight. The second part of the study tracked the caloric intake of American adults and children in the same timeframe.

Hm, I think someone’s trying to poke the pudgy Americans with their crooked nicotine stained finger.

Anyway, as you may already figured out, the study basically said that Americans got fatter faster than everyone else due to portion sizes of food consumption. Yes, Americans gained 24lbs and our children gained 19lbs over a 33 year timeframe. We out gained the other subjects by 6-7 pounds!


Holy Crap! It took an Australian study to figure that Americans are getting fat by consuming too much food over the past 30+ years.

So what has happened over the past 30+ years, well life became too much about convenience.

Back in the 1970’s, when the Australian study begins, America was going thru another economic depression, due to instability in Oil, Corn, Wheat and Soybeans. Prices were skyrocketing, but unlike today, the idea of dining out was considered a once a month occasion. Hell, in 1970 there were only 1,500 McDonald’s in the States for Americans to drive thru.

But by the end of the decade, convenience was not in food only as the totality of American life became convenient. Consumption from everything from food to electronics began to keep Americans at home more and less outdoors.

Come on, America saw the growth of Cable TV from 10 million subscribers in 1975 to over 40 million by 1980. So much to watch so little time, although I think its coincidence that HBO (Home Box Office) and CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network) were the highest rated cable channels during this growth.

Automatic Teller Machines, easier access to credit cards, home food delivery, and soda everywhere made life outside the home wonderful. McDonald’s, Pizza Hut, Burger King and so on tripled in size during the 1980’s.

So wonderful was life in the 1980’s that commercials reminded everyone how much easier life would be with their product.

"We humans have become so technologically sophisticated that in certain ways we're dangerous to ourselves. It's going to be increasingly important over time for humanity to take a longer-term view of its future." Amazon founder Jeff Bezos

So here we sit and I mean sit as blue collar jobs shifted from manufacturer to computer enhanced, that 95% of Americans spend their 8 hour work day sitting in front of a computer only to go home and sit in front of another computer screen or Flat screen TV.

Today, everyone from paid TV dieticians to paid celebrities to the First Lady have ideas on how to get America moving, yet the Political punditry have created such uproar about First Lady Michelle Obama’s quest for our youth to eat right and exercise that it’s labeled as an “over reaching government” ploy.

How dare Government tell Americans how to live their lives!

Have the pundits forgotten about Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower’s quest for a healthy America? After all it was Eisenhower that created the President’s Council of Physical Fitness and Sports that many schools participated in.

Did these pundits also forget about Pres Ronald Reagan using the popularity of Arnold Schwarzenegger in to promote the President’s Council of Physical Fitness and Sports?
I guess that wasn’t part of the “over reaching government” as well?

Guess they have, but then they wouldn’t be pundits if they told the entire story, they’d be real journalists.

So now, we are left with a piss-poor health system due to the Obese American adults & children, and now American mayors are declaring what is healthy enough to be sold in their towns.

NYC Mayor Bloomberg has decided that “No Soda shall reach one’s lips in a cup larger than 16oz.” As Bloomberg explained “You can’t have a soda beverage larger than 16oz, so if you 32oz’s buy two cups.”

Which is interesting since the same policy is held for alcoholic beverages sold at MetLife Stadium where both the NY Jets & Giants play.

Per the MetLife Stadium alcohol policy “Guests may not possess or purchase more than two (2) alcoholic beverages at a time of which sizes may not exceed 16 ounces each for beer and 6.5 ounces each for wine.”

See, now that’s crazy. Who the hell is drinking wine at a football game? Might as well ask for Brie Cheese with your Nacho chips! After all, it helps the staleness of the chip taste better.

It’s not about keeping you healthy with portion control; it’s about consumerism and spending more.

But as NYC goes, so does the nation as Cambridge Massachusetts is planning a vote on limiting the size of sodas and sugar-sweetened beverages sold in restaurants within city limits.

Its maneuvers like this that keeps sparking the idea of a “Fat Tax” to cure Obesity and our Healthcare issues. People seem to be more wanting of a “Fat Tax” then to have some politician telling them how much they can consume.

According to Medwire News, if a “Fat Tax” were to even make a dent in the American Obesity issue it would have to be close to 35%.

For example, it’s Friday and the family of 4 dines out at their local Pizza Hut. They order 2 Medium Pizzas (1- Pepperoni & Black Olives 1- Supreme), Family order of Breadsticks, 4 Pepsi drinks and 1 Wing Street Apple Pie, their total bill will be just above $40. If you throw in 15% gratuity, the bill jumps to $46.

Now add the so-called “Fat Tax” at 35%, that’s an additional $16 to the bill for a grand total of roughly $62 to eat at Pizza Hut.

The notion that people will eat/drink less if they are paying more is hogwash, because if that were truth people wouldn’t be shelling out $9 for a turkey leg the size of an adult forearm and $3.50 for a 20oz Dasani water at Disney World.

So as people sit back and jump between viewing Biggest Loser and Man vs. Food reruns, which of the two will capture your attention longer?

Man Vs. Food would win because where else can one watch a guy consume large amounts of meat in a small window of time outside of Nathan’s Famous Hot Dog eating contest.

What we view is what we consume.

That’s it. To quote America’s favorite beer swilling lump, Norm from Cheers “it’s a dog eat dog world and I’m wearing Milkbone underwear.”

Slap the Tap and pour me a 32oz Guinness Light, I gotta watch my oversized waistline.

Pay your political tab

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Mitt Romney: Pay me as “I-Go” presidential salary plan canard

Ah yes, the return from a long family vacation is so blessed especially when one’s hobby is blogging about American political theatre.

So GOP nominee Willard Mitt Romney has told Neal Boortz’ national syndicated radio audience that he believes that his Presidential pay should be judged on how well he does his job.


Well it didn’t take long before the sane people at were able to link the story to a Saturday Night Live skit performed by Dana Carvey as Ross Perot, effectively mocking Romney’s idea.

However, a presidential paycheck should seem more like a gratuity for someone of Romney’s wealth.

To say that the presidential paycheck has not grown with the cost of living is an easy joke.

George Washington was to have received $25K salary as President, yet turned it down. Why? Was it because he knew the newly founded country was broke? Nope, it was because he already had a sweet stash of cash.

Between 1969 & 2001, the presidential yearly paycheck was $200K and then on January 1, 2001, it doubled to $400K plus a $50K expense allowance.

A millionaire in his own right, if elected, Romney would become the richest president in history, before and after service. For example, in 2010, Romney listed his Adjusted Gross Income as $21 million, yet his complete net worth has been noted to be somewhere around $125-$147 million.

Last year, the Huffington Post ran an article listing the net worth of all 44 Presidents, of the last 6 Pres Clinton is worth the most.

Pres. Jimmy Carter- In 1977, before entering the White House, Carter listed his Adjusted Gross Income close to $189K and within his 4 years of service (Earning $200K/yearly) left in debt. Kind of a mirror as to how he ran the country at the time, however he is currently worth $7 million.

Pres. Ronald Reagan- In 1981, Reagan’s AGI was near $418K and according to Huffington Post, Reagan is now worth an estimated $13 million. Reagan’s past as a GM Spokesperson and book royalties helped his retirement.

Pres. George HW Bush- In 1989, the Bush patriarch whom spent much of his adult life in public service in one form or another listed his AGI near $456K. After leaving office, HW’s net worth jumped towards $23 million thanks to many investments.

Doing the research up to Pres. Bush was ridiculous thanks to the fact that no one cared about a candidate’s personal finances or tax returns until the age of the 24 hour news cycle and the avalanche of Special Interests.

Pres Bill Clinton- As Arkansas Governor, Clinton earned a pathetic $35K salary, but he happily admitted how he enjoyed living off the perks of the jobs (insert your own jokes) and in 1991 listed his AGI at roughly $290K. However at the time, the Clinton’s combined net worth was just below $700K, thanks to Hillary’s law income and some shrewd investment practices.

One can say the Clinton’s used every bit of Bill’s popularity at home and abroad to grow their net worth to the sum of $38 million, largely from his overpriced lectures and massive book royalties.

Pres George W Bush- After struggling through poor investment and business ventures, “W” was able to build his financial worth through perseverance as oil investments rose and a group venture that bought MLB’s Texas Rangers that paid him handsomely when he sold his shares of the team.

“W’s” 2000 AGI was listed just above $894K with a family net worth between $11-$29 million and currently a net worth of $20 million, which if he goes forth with more speaking engagements should grow upwards near $30 million.

Pres Barrack Obama- In 2007, he listed his AGI around $2.6 million, which a large majority came from book royalties and has a current net worth of $5 million. One can only speculate how high the Obama’s net worth will grow once he leaves office in either 2012 or 2016, depending on the results of this year’s election.

So exactly how much the Romney’s will gain from this candidacy and/or possible presidency could be a massive windfall.

Yet Romney’s statement about how his pay should be judged upon performance is typical CEO speak, as many current CEO’s are taking a $1 salary, yet receiving millions on stock options.

It’s a gimmick that has been accredited to Lee Iacocca in the late 1970’s

When Iacocca took over a dying Chrysler, he created a buzz by stating he’ll take a $1 salary so he could mock the over-reaching Auto Workers Union and get millions in Federal loans. However, Iacocca was receiving stock options on the side and by 1986 Chrysler’s stocks skyrocketed to which Iacocca received a sweet $20 million paycheck.

More recently, Ford’s William Ford, Jr decided he wouldn’t receive a paycheck while at the helm between 2000 & 2006, yet received over $10 million in stock option compensation during that timeframe.

So, once again I ask, what does Romney have to gain by his statement?

It wasn’t too long ago that Romney sat amongst a group of constituents and exclaimed “I’m like many of you, I’m currently unemployed.” There’s a huge difference between the struggling unemployed and an unemployed millionaire.

That’s it, pass the unsalted peanuts and “Slap the Tap” and pour a 16oz Guinness in honor of NYC Emperor Mike Bloomberg. Time to pay the political tab